Loading...
2007 - November 5 c..a500. G.;:;-3 Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2007 1 of 11 Minutes Planning Commission City of Orange 5 November 2007 Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker Commissioner Steiner STAFF PRESENT: Ed Knight, Assistant Planning Director Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Sonal Thakur, Assistant Planner Gary Sheatz, Assistant City Attorney Sandi Dimick, Recording Secretary ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION: Administrative Session called to order @ 6:35 P.M. Mr. Sheatz spoke about the upcoming ABC Meeting and discussed who would be in attendance. Chair Imboden reviewed the Agenda with the Commission. He clarified that the Administrative Session Minutes would be coming to the Commissioners with the meeting minutes as one package, and could they approve them with the minutes. Mr. Sheatz stated yes this would be the case and they could be approved as one packet. He also commented there would be no need to make a motion to adjourn the Administrative Session, if there would be a time gap between the Admin Session and the PC Meeting the Chair could recess the Admin Session at a time specified with the Commission to reconvene with the PC Meeting in Chambers. Agenda Items: Charo Chicken was back on the agenda as a continued item. Commissioner Merino asked if they were back with the CUP, and could they make a specific finding on that and move forward on the item. Mr. Sheatz stated yes they could make a finding and approval looking at the project and conditions. Mr. Knight clarified that he had reviewed the previous meeting minutes and that the Commission had made a motion to continue. Chair Imboden asked if it was better to continue the item or make a motion to deny in a situation such as Charo Chicken. Mr. Knight stated that if denied, the item could come back again with a resolution as a consent item; Mr. Sheatz added that it was better to have the opportunity to review the item then have it come back as a continued item. Gabbis Mexican Restaurant: Ms. Thakur stated that she had phoned the applicant and they would be present this evening, also Mr. Ryan had reviewed the item with her and she would be presenting it to Page 1 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2007 2 of 11 the Commission. Chair Imboden stated that he would have questions on the item. Mr. Sheatz wanted to clarify some generalities on issues that had come up. On the Gabbis application it was questioned whether to move forward or to continue due to the applicant being absent from the hearing. As far as legalities were concerned the applicant was given due process, he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and with that in mind action could have been taken on the item. Mr. Sheatz wanted to clarify that the Commission did have options if the situation would present itself again. Chair Imboden stated that it had been the practice of the Commission to continue the item when the applicant was absent. As Gabbis was a DRC item, it was in the best interest of the Commission to keep it close to home and continue the item, rather than move forward and create a potential to have the applicant appeal and then go back through the process again. Mr. Sheatz mentioned that if there were Public Speakers present that they should be allowed to speak, even without the applicant present, as they had made the effort to be present. Commissioner Merino mentioned that the applicant could use the presence of the public and their absence as strategy. Mr. Sheatz spoke about using reality and not hypothetical situations, as Staff needed to make decisions on actuals and it placed them in a bad position to have hypothetical questions posed to them. In order to move forward and defend an action, a hypothetical had no weight, could not be supported and hurt the situation. Commissioner Merino stated that looking at a case hypothetically would give him the benefit of reviewing similar items that were consistent on different items being presented. Commissioner Whitaker stated that the Commission needed to look at each item as an individual item, regardless of the similarities. Mr. Sheatz explained that if you were only looking at statistical information and no other factors you could, as an individual, make your own determination and the same outcome for two separate items based on that information. Items needed to be reviewed for various conditions such as location, type of business, statistical information and make approvals based on that information - if they looked the same - you could make the same determination for both items. Commissioner Merino asked if statistical information were the only factor, how would you reconcile your decision based on the whole package and where they fell on the agenda? Mr. Sheatz explained that the only sense of fairness you could get would be to reconcile it within yourself and the placement of the item on the agenda had no relevancy on the item before you. Commissioner Merino wanted to treat the applicants fairly and possibly the Commission could have further discussion when the item in question was not before the Commission. Mr. Sheatz concluded when the discussion was brought forth at a previous hearing Mr. Ortlieb had done an excellent job of answering the hypothetical situations posed to him reiterated that the items needed to be looked at on an individual basis, looking at all the variables involved with that project. Chair Imboden agreed the topic would require further discussion during an alternate meeting when the item was not before the Page 2 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5,2007 3 of 11 Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN: None CONSENT ITEMS (1) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 2007. Commissioner Merino made a motion to approve the October I, 2007 minutes. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Merino, Imboden, and Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2660-07 - CHARO CHICKEN At the October 1, 2007 Planning Commission hearing, staff was directed to return before the Commission at the November 5, 2007 meeting with a revised Resolution No. 37-07 for approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2660-07) which will allow Charo Chicken to obtain a Type 41 Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control License (on-sale beer and wine). LOCATION: 970 N. Tustin NOTE: This project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per state CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) because the project consists of licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37-07. Senior Planner, Chad Ortlieb presented a project overview consistent with the Staff Report, noting this was a continued item from the October 1, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff, there were none. The Public Hearing was opened. Page 3 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5,2007 4 of 11 Applicant, Weslie Metcalfe, 2422 N. Caton Court, Orange came forward to address the Commission. He had a question regarding the signage in his establishment. If he had a neon sign in the back of the building, and because the building was mostly glass, he did not want to violate any ordinances and asked for some direction. Chair Imboden deferred the question to staff. He clarified that it was not window advertising. Mr. Ortlieb stated there was not a municipal code requirement, but more of a policy or a pattern that had been established with various alcohol CUP's. It was a unique circumstance and the Commission could establish policy. Chair Imboden stated there were codes that restricted window signage; however, on signage inside a tenant's location it was not typically addressed with an ordinance. Mr. Ortlieb stated that it was open to interpretation on establishing what window signage consisted of. Commissioner Whitaker believed what the applicant was referring to was condition #15, and asked if the condition was taken from similar quick serve restaurants? Mr. Ortlieb stated yes, this was the same language. Chair Imboden stated that the language was conditional language and not mirrored from an ordinance. Commissioner Merino stated he interpreted the condition as if an alcohol sign was visible it would be a violation of condition #15. Mr. Knight stated in looking at the second sentence interior display of alcoholic beverages which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of the condition. It was not a black or white situation, it was meant to keep signs away from the window area. If the sign was posted over the serving station and not visible from the public right away, the intent was to advertise around the counter area. Staffs interpretation of that would be no violation and no need to move the sign. Commissioner Merino stated it would be good news for the applicant if code enforcement looked at it in the same manner as Staff and there would be no violation. If the applicant would not put up a sign, he would be guaranteed not to have the situation. Mr. Knight stated there were no guarantees and what he explained might be the standard common sense approach used by code enforcement. Mr. Metcalfe asked if 10' from the window would be acceptable. Chair Imboden stated that it was a bit of a gray area and the Commission could further discuss their recommendation. Commissioner Bonina asked the applicant if the patio area would have locking gates. Mr. Metcalfe stated in speaking with ABC he had addressed the issue and was told that locks were not necessary. When the building had first gone up he had approached ABC Page 4 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2007 5 of 11 to get the height and security requirements and at that time was told 10cks were not needed. Mr. Metcalfe was willing to provide locking gates if the Commission required that and noted that there were cameras in the patio area. Chair Imboden closed the Public Hearing and opened the item for Commission discussion. He stated that typically in patio areas there were locked gates and asked staff if they were equipped with panic bars. Mr. Ortlieb stated yes; this is generally a mitigation issue. Commissioner Bonina asked Staff if the intent of condition #15 was to address the signage that would be directly on the window looking out? If this was so, could we add language to read that signage could not be placed directly on the window? Mr. Sheatz stated he had spoken with the Police Department regarding the condition. There were 2 parts to the condition; there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type specifically directed to advertise on the exterior, not within the establishment. The point of that type of advertising would be for people driving by to know that alcoholic beverages were served there. The second part, interior displays of alcoholic beverages; that covered establishments such as AM/PM Mini Marts where inside the doorway there would be stacks of beer. This portion of the sentence addressed issues that would prevent beer run type of situations. It was specific to a display of alcoholic beverages and would not necessarily be appropriate for a restaurant scenario. Mr. Sheatz wanted to clarify that these were standard conditions that had very specific purposes that were clearly different. Commissioner Whitaker stated that he echoed Commissioner Bonina's comment in possibly modifying the condition to state that anything visible from the public right of way would not be clearly visible from the public right of way vs. hanging signage from the middle of the ceiling where it would be clearly visible. Chair Imboden stated that he was comfortable with the language as written based on the explanation by Mr. Sheatz and he could agree with the direction of the Commission. Commissioner Merino made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 37- 07 and CUP 2660-07 for Charo Chicken Type 41 Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control License, noting that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 - Existing Facilities with the following conditions: . On Condition #30, provide that patio gates be closed at all times and have a type of locking device, taking into consideration fire safety exit codes. . On Condition #15 change the language to eliminate the word exterior and replace it with public right of way. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Whitaker Commissioners Imboden, Merino and Whitaker Commissioner Bonina None Commissioner Steiner Page 5 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2007 6 of 11 MOTION CARRIED COMMISSION BUSINESS: (3) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE 4085-06 - GABBI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT A proposal for modifications to the rear elevation of the existing restaurant. Proposed modifications include the installation of fixed wood shutters, a new full length awning, and a new 36' high wrought iron fence. LOCATION: 141 S. Glassell NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State Guidelines 15331 (Class 31 - Historical Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation) because the project is limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 4085-06 Assistant Planner, Sonal Thakur gave a project overview consistent with the Staff Report. Chair Imboden opened the hearing for any questions to Staff. Commissioner Merino asked whether there would be a code violation if the item were approved as written, referring to the loading zone? Ms. Thakur stated that Staffs interpretation was that it would not comply with the codes intent. Chair Imboden clarified in the way it was worded, Staff did not feel it met code and the issue was before the Commission for their discretionary review. Chair Imboden opened the Public Hearing. Applicants, Edward Patrick, 141 S. Glassell, Orange and Leason Pomeroy, 158 N. Glassell, Orange came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Patrick stated what they proposed for the rear of the building was to add a nice fa<;ade to equal the front of the building. In 100king down the street at the other business' that had alley access, there would not be a possibility of allowing a truck to pull into the area to load/unload even without the proposed fence. The planter on the business next door was approximately 10' X 8' which would be an equal situation with their proposal. Page 6 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2007 7 of 11 Mr. Pomeroy stated there was huge difficulty in trying to force a loading zone in the area, as it was almost impossible to get a truck in and out of the area. There were buildings that came out on the southern side. With the awning being installed, it would be so low that it would prohibit trucks to come through. He felt that the aesthetics would be more important, and currently trucks load and unload in the parking lots in the Plaza area. In other buildings that he owned in the area, the loading and unloading was done in the parking lots during off hours with no impact on parking. Mr. Pomeroy wanted the loading zone requirement waived. In adding the fence it would prevent customers from using the alley and sliding in the back door of the restaurant, which was a key reason for adding the fence and also to keep debris from being collected in the area. He felt it was unjust to require one tenant to have a loading zone when other tenants were not required to. Commissioner Bonina asked if the deliveries were made via the parking lot and items carted into the store? Mr. Patrick stated that the larger vehicles did, with UPS or similar trucks they stopped in the alley and made their deliveries. Chair Imboden stated there were speaker cards and opened the meeting for Public Comment. Dianna Zdenek, 371 S. Orange, Orange addressed the Commission and stated that she understood that there were two problems the owner of Gabbis was presenting, that people were loitering and littering behind the restaurant. In looking at the design she felt that the design was contradictory to the objectives. The proposed columns and awning in the back area would draw more attention to the area and exacerbate the existing problem. A simple sign above the door noting for deliveries only or exit only would accomplish one of the goals. She felt that making the back of the building more appealing would not deter people from loitering. Janet Crenshaw, 280 N. Cleveland, Orange representing the Old Towne Preservation Association stated for the most part the applicant had done a good job on the front fayade, although the aluminum doors did not meet the original conditions of approval with the wood veneer applied to the outside of aluminum doors. There had been other proposals for aluminum doors in the Plaza District that had been denied. Approving this item would set a precedent and send the wrong message. To remain consistent this needed to be corrected. There was also confusion on the rear entrance; if this was to be used merely as a secondary or alternate entrance it seemed elaborate for the rear of the building and should remain consistent with other buildings rear facades. An issue that appeared to be overlooked was the door that had already been installed, the door may be consistent with the building's use, and as it was being called a restoration, the new door was inconsistent with the period and design of the building. OTP A felt the door needed to be replaced with the original or similar door. It was not clear on the design of the shutters; would they be simulating a window and were shutters even appropriate on the building? The rear fayade had an original Buster Brown Shoe sign, and they wanted to ensure that the sign was maintained as the sign on the front fayade had been destroyed in the front elevation remodel. Page 7 of 11 Pages Chair Imboden asked the applicants to come forward to address comments. November 5,2007 8 of 11 any of the public Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Patrick stated they had uncovered the sign. During cleaning they realized what was there and wanted it preserved, that was why they had not touched the front and added any signage. Mr. Pomeroy stated to replace the rear door with a glass door that had been there would not be in character with the rest of the area, although it could be done if the Commission requested. Mr. Patrick clarified that the window was removed because it had brick behind it. The door was wood. Jeff Frankel complimented them on the door, and felt it conformed to what the City wanted. Mr. Pomeroy stated that they were trying to enhance the rear area of the building. Mr. Patrick added they had enhanced the building and had brought it back as close to the original photos they were able to pull from the archives. Mr. Pomeroy stated that the doors had aluminum supports, as they are very large doors. For all intents and purposes they were wooden and satisfied the requirements of the City. Commissioner Bonina asked if the new door in the back was aluminum with a veneer finish or wood and if the area in the back would have a rail and an awning that would not be an area where patrons would gather or be used for storage? Mr. Patrick stated that it was a wooden door. On the rear area this would be part of the property and a way to keep the area clean and encourage people to walk around to the front of the building. He stated that people walking through the alley throw their cigarette butts and thrash and the enclosure would prevent that. Mr. Pomeroy added that the vertical supports for the awning were necessary in the event of a Santa Ana wind condition. Chair Imboden stated he could not support the application in its present form. He understood the intent to improve the rear of the building. There were Secretary of Interior Standards provisions that did allow for changes in buildings to accommodate new uses. However, he did not understand the new use that would necessitate a change to this Historic Building. As far as the rear openings being blocked in, he could support the intent for the installation of wood shutters, he thought the door looked like a Mexican Cantina door and did not have a place in the Old Towne Historic building. The Commission had been clear that the doors would be wood doors, the wood veneer that had been placed over them was acceptable in his opinion and read as wood doors and he did not feel the need to have them changed. Chair Imboden stated that the rear door made a significant change to the character of the rear of the building. In reference to the awning, fence and wrought iron columns he was perplexed as an awning was typically a shading device, but there were no openings on the back of the building that would be shaded. The awning seemed a bit out of place and the wrought iron was far too decorative for the back fayade of the building. He noted the applicant had pointed out that there were other buildings with wrought iron, and those would have been added prior to the establishment of the Old Towne requirements. Chair Imboden wanted to assist the applicant in finding a way to enhance the back of the building if that was their choice but felt the current design was too elaborate. Commissioner Merino stated he wanted to clearly understand the intent of adding a barrier. In providing an awning and the fence he could not understand how that would address the problems they had stated, and having an enclosed area would encourage trash Page 8 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2007 9 of 11 being thrown into it. He felt the area would be used for patrons or employees to use as a smoking area, and although that may not be the applicant's intent, Commissioner Merino felt there would be a potential for that to occur. He understood, in regards to the code issue, they would not want to be treated unfairly and it was important to have a level playing field, he wanted to ask Staff if the code was being applied to this application and not others. He wanted more clarification from the applicant on their intent for the rear area based on the design they had brought forth. Mr. Pomeroy answered some of the employees took their breaks in the rear of the building and it would be nice to provide the shade. If anyone were to use the area it would be employees. The idea of the awning was to have it recall the front, patrons would know it was Gabbis and walk around to the front and it would also be used to shade the doors. Commissioner Merino commented the use of the area needed to be clearly addressed to determine what it was being used for and brought to the Commission for its real use and not brought in with the explanation of preventing garbage in the area. With this being given, if the objective was to let people know where Gabbis was located, there may be an alternative to the awning for that purpose. He wanted an application that stated the true use of the area. Mr. Patrick stated he understood what was being said and that it may not have been articulated in the plan. He asked if Commissioner Merino was asking them to come back with a revised situation of what the area would be used for. Commissioner Merino stated he was looking for the real purpose of the area and to have it clearly stated and not as it appeared as empty space. Mr. Pomeroy wanted to clarify if employees could use that space as a break area? Commissioner Merino stated it would be a different project than what was brought before them; the current use was to have a secure space. Mr. Pomeroy stated it was a security issue to keep the area clean and the transient population out of the area, and to also provide a space for employees to take a break. Commissioner Merino wanted to feel good about the project that was brought before them and to approve a project on the basis of what the use was as stated in the application and not for another purpose. Commissioner Whitaker stated the shutters were fine to cover up the recesses, and an aged wood door was much better than installing a 1950's glass door. He was struggling with the 3' high enclosure that would extend 20', cars double parked in that area, and if it was enclosed it would be hard to get in and out of the alley. The awning was okay, but the enclosure would not prohibit someone from throwing trash in the area and cars could be banging up the fencing coming in and out of the alley. Mr. Pomeroy stated that he felt a taller wall with a pair of doors would solve all the issues. Chair Imboden stated that it would not blend in with the historic fabric of the area and it was not the application that was before the Commission. Mr. Pomeroy asked if they could come back with an addition to the building. Chair Imboden stated that he could not speak on an application that was not before the Page 9 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2007 10 of 11 Commission. He felt that the changes in the current application were not in compliance and if the applicant chose to propose a different project, the applicant would need to come back to the City with that request. Mr. Pomeroy stated that he would rather come back with an addition to the building and not be mandated to have a loading zone. Commissioner Merino asked Staff if the loading zone was not being consistently applied to all the businesses in the area? Ms. Thakur stated that she could only speak to this project and on this project it did not meet code. Chair Imboden stated they had not seen projects brought before them that had the requirement. Mr. Pomeroy added he owned several other buildings in the area and the loading zone requirement had not been applied to those locations. Mr. Patrick stated the Tea Room had added a room in the alley area. Chair Imboden clarified that it was not in an Historic Building and was new construction. Commissioner Bonina, looking at the older photos, noted that there was an awning and suspected that deliveries were made with that awning in place, he felt that not having post and having the awning cantilevered would be a better solution for the area. It would provide shade and an area where an employee could break and still allow for deliveries. He asked if the applicant would be willing to remove the railing and post. Mr. Pomeroy stated that he was at a point to just leave the building alone and felt he would rather withdraw the application, and consider adding onto the building or just leaving it alone. Commissioner Merino stated this was a process where they try to find the best solution. Mr. Pomeroy felt there were too many designers and the awning could not be cantilevered to withstand the Santa Ana winds, and it did preclude delivery vehicles from entering the area. He wanted to withdraw the application. Mr. Sheatz stated the Commission had been specific in what they agreed and disagreed on, he felt the Commission could give the applicant better direction and one of the elements that was before the body was the door. A decision could be made on the door as that portion of the application required approval/denial and it would be best to move in that direction rather than having the entire application withdrawn. Chair Imboden asked the Commission for a consensus on the front door. All Commissioners agreed that they could pass approval on the door. Commissioner Imboden made a motion recognizing that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA and approved DRC Item 4085-06 Gabbis Mexican Restaurant only for the portion of the application which covered existing doors that were previously installed on the front fayade of the building. No action would be taken on the changes to the rear elevations, as the applicant had chosen to withdrawn that portion of the application. Page 10 of 11 Pages Planning Commission Minutes SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: November 5, 2007 11 of 11 Commissioner Merino Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED (7) ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Merino made a motion for adjournment to the next regular scheduled session of the Planning Commission held in the Council Chambers Monday, November 19,2007. SECOND: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Bonina Commissioners Bonina, Imboden, Merino, and Whitaker None None Commissioner Steiner MOTION CARRIED. MEETING ADJOURNED @ 8:16 Page 11 of 11 Pages